Astha Ramaiya [Co-author] Shared the Journal Article - Published in Child Abuse & Neglect, June 2026
A new systematic review published in Child Abuse & Neglect examined the link between mental health and technology-facilitated child sexual exploitation and abuse (TF-CSEA). Analysing 10 studies with over 25,000 participants across seven countries, researchers found that depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and prior trauma were consistently associated with victimisation. Crucially, the relationship appears bidirectional with mental health difficulties both preceding and resulting from exploitation; creating potential cycles of repeated harm. Perhaps most striking: traditional parental monitoring through technological surveillance showed limited protective effects. What actually mattered? The quality of parent-child relationships including, open communication, emotional warmth, and trust. The findings suggest prevention efforts should combine universal school-based programmes building emotional resilience with targeted support for high-risk youth, while parent education should prioritise connection over control. With 12.5% of children globally experiencing online solicitation annually, understanding these psychological pathways is essential for effective child protection.
Alok Srivastava, Vasanti Rao & Amita Puri Article on International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health, January 2026
Tara Prasad Article on Challanges and Lessons Learns of GESI responsive and inclusive conservatiom practices, Nepal
Ritu Dewan & Swati Raju Article on Economic and Political Weekly
Viera Schioppetto shared Thesis on Gender Approach in Development Projects
IPE Global Ltd. is a multi-disciplinary development sector consulting firm offering a range of integrated, innovative and high-quality services across several sectors and practices. We offer end-to-end consulting and project implementation services in the areas of Social and Economic Empowerment, Education and Skill Development, Public Health, Nutrition, WASH, Urban and Infrastructure Development, Private Sector Development, among others.
Over the last 26 years, IPE Global has successfully implemented over 1,200 projects in more than 100 countries. The group is headquartered in New Delhi, India with five international offices in United Kingdom, Kenya, Ethiopia, Philippines and Bangladesh. We partner with multilateral, bilateral, governments, corporates and not-for-profit entities in anchoring development agenda for sustained and equitable growth. We strive to create an enabling environment for path-breaking social and policy reforms that contribute to sustainable development.
Role Overview
IPE Global is seeking a motivated Senior Analyst – Low Carbon Pathways to strengthen and grow its Climate Change and Sustainability practice. The role will contribute to business development, program management, research, and technical delivery across climate mitigation, carbon markets, and energy transition. This position provides exceptional exposure to global climate policy, finance, and technology, working with a team of high-performing professionals and in collaboration with donors, foundations, research institutions, and public agencies.
Hi
Am planning to do an impact assessment that will assess the impact of a teaching tool used by teachers Unfortunately a baseline wasn't done and its over three years now. Was wondering if comparing to a control group of teachers who haven't used the tool would work. Are there any other methods that can be utilized to assess impact without bias.
Thanks
Priya Anand
Tags:
Thanks Prya for sharing thereby starting this very interesting discussion. I have learnt something from this. However, more importantly for me, I now understand, from this discussion, what was meant by colleagues, who are professional evaluators, when they argued that not every social scientist or professional who has evaluated development projects/programmes is an evaluator. This was said at the 2014 Africa Region Evaluation Association (AfREA) Conference.
From the responses you have received, it sounds like you would be better off using mixed methods, as well as the 'control' group of teachers that you suggested. The focus group discussions might bring in other factors that might validate findings from the other methods. As someone pointed out in this discussion, some desk research including any reports such as project/programme or field reports, might shed some light with regard to the methodology. Analysing the results against the original objectives and a SWOT(C)analysis might also help.
I hope that it is possible for you to share you experience after the impact assessment is done.
Cecilia
Thanks for a very informative discussion but what about using the most significant change approach establish the effect of the teaching tool
Permalink Reply by Priya Anand on October 9, 2015 at 19:03 Thanks Esteban and Will for recommending Michael Bamberger's book. And to Isha, Sarah and Fanaye. Your suggestions are very valuable.
Hello Priya,
Looks like you have enough to get started here, but I wanted to quickly add my voice as this is a topic of interest to me. Maybe just my lens, bit it seems I can still hear echoes of the great Randomista vs. Big Push Forwards debate (https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/so-what-do-i-take-away-from-the-great-e...). My favorite outcome of that whole era (now, thankfully, subsiding with a few nasty pockets of resistance) was the DFID paper which outlines the full range of potential impact evaluation methods (http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/Output/189575/), the counterfactual-based among them. P. 16-23 have a great birds-eye summary of the options out there.
Regards,
William
Thanks to Deo- Gracias Houndolo from 3ie Delhi office for sending a response through email
Dear Rituu,
Thanks for posting this question.
Technically speaking one can evaluate an intervention using a with - without approach. However findings from such a methodological approach would be biased and change that would be measured cannot be attributed to the intervention evaluated. Simply because without a baseline reference, it is Simply not possible to effectively mesure the magnitude of effect induced by the teachers intervention. Please note that baseline data in the treatment group is not enough to limit biases but you also need baseline data in your comparison group. Hence baseline are necessary to measure effect that are attributable to your intervention. Otherwise, just acknowledge that your results are about outcome evaluation.
More need also to be covered with respect to identification strategy.
In any case, secondary data exploration could be a way to address the lack of baseline data in this case.
Best wishes,
Deo.
I was wondering if it helps to measure dose dependent response. Here change after exposure to time to the tools- 6 months, 12 months, 18 months or 2years etc in addition to the methods suggested
Time-series/longitudinal analysis will require data collected over a period of time among the intervention group. there is no baseline for sure but am not sure if any data has been collected during the 3 years of intervention.
Permalink Reply by Elizabeth Negi on October 12, 2015 at 15:55 Dear Priya,
I think you have all the pros and cons to conduct the impact assessment. I don't think the use of a control group of teachers alone will reflect the changes anticipated through the use of the tool.
I do think Participatory methods especially FGDs as already suggested will be the best option. Teachers/schools usually have past records of these may be a source of qualitative and quantitative data if objectives were set clearly at the start of the project
Elizabeth Negi
© 2026 Created by Rituu B Nanda.
Powered by